Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 6, 2014 11:30pm-12:01am PST

11:30 pm
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. actually, before you speak, let me call a number of other names. we're almost down to the bottom of our list. matthew moore. dr. darlene bars. brian davis. paolo a costa. mark isip. madam bowen. dr. gwen essex and gwen [speaker not understood]. next speaker. hi, lauren lampert, ucsf. i've been analyzing state and local e-cig policies and looking at who is favorable to e-cigarette companies. most of the campaign are orchestrated by big tobacco companies and right wing think tanks. it's not mom and pop industry. e-cig companies have been mobilizing the same group the big tobacco industries have been using for years to push their policy agenda.
11:31 pm
the heartland institute, cato institute, public policy research with tea party links have been pushing these policies. it is important that you understand these -- many of these are deceptively designed to [speaker not understood]. we urge you to protect the public health and recognize these cynical influences. thank you. >> thank you. [speaker not understood] and joseph [speaker not understood]. michael barger, lawrence tam. [speaker not understood]. and i think i already called dr. darlene bonds. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is amanda fallon and i am a [speaker not understood]. my colleague conducted a study that was published two days ago in the american journal of preventive medicine examining electronic cigarette marketing on websites. she found that 71% discuss the use of electronic cigarettes as a way to circumvent smoke-free policies.
11:32 pm
allowing e-cigarettes to be smoked indoors is problematic because it may expose bystanders to unknown toxins such as volatile organic compounds, nicotine, and tobacco related carcinogens. it may also confuse enforcement of the current smoke-free policy. in california it what decided many years ago that workers should be protected from secondhand smoke. san francisco should follow in the footsteps of los angeles and pro he text worker from secondhand emissions of e-cigarettes. >> thank you so much. next speaker. my name is randy wong and i attend ucsf. [speaker not understood]. it's a small cozy bar i like a lot. i like all the people who are in the bar. the good thing about the bar is everyone who smokes regular cigarettes goes outside to smoke them. some people use e-cigarettes inside and sometimes it's the
11:33 pm
same people who smoke regular tobacco cigarettes outside and use e-cigarettes inside. and there is one story i remember about this. a patron was using e-cigarette. the bartender asked why they were using it inside. the person said it was vapor not smoke. the bartender said smoke and vapor is the same thing. they may not be exactly the same, but they still pollute the air with chemicals people have to breathe secondhand. >> great, great story. thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian davis and i live north of the pan handle in san francisco. i'm also a gay man who has been helping the lgbt community fight big tobacco for over 6 years. i urge you to vote to protect the health of our queer citizens by [speaker not understood] this legislation. [speaker not understood] and queer smoke twice as much as other satisfy hans. e-cigarettes increase the
11:34 pm
danger of normalizing smoking in bars as well as introducing airborne toxins to the environment. we can't allow this to happen. there is another threat. the tobacco company has been seen passing out free blue cigarettes in san diego. the company that used to give out free new ports to 13 year old kid. these people may come to san francisco soon, tempting many people young and younger to try these devices who have never even smoked. after all, first one is always free, isn't it? thank you. >> thank you for your leadership, too, over the years. next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood]. i am a recent graduate of san francisco state university. i am here representing my father fong wa whos was a 45 year smoker. he started in the vietnam war. i've seen his health decrease. in the last 7 months i introduced him to electronic cigarettes. now as of last month he is completely off of any nicotine product and i have never seen
11:35 pm
him healthier. i'm coming here not to talk about the ban or anything, but just listen to the opportunity of men like my father to have an opportunity to get off of the tobacco industry. this is not the same. we are fighting here. our community came here to explain the differences between big tobacco and the home brewers who are like us. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, my name is paolo a costa. i live in the [speaker not understood] district in san francisco. most of you here are talking about companies -- tobacco companies who own electronic -- who are promoting electronic cigarettes. i have here five liquids that are not owned by the tobacco companies. they all say, contains nicotine warning. and also says, children should not -- this should be kept away from children. you guys are all saying that it's all a market for children
11:36 pm
and kids. although most of the market is to the baby boomers and generation x. none of these actually are to promote to kids nor minors. that's all i'll say. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is mark esip. i'm the owner of s.f. vapor in the excelsior district. i started smoking at the age of 16. i was a smoker for 10 years. then i transferred over to electronic cigarettes. now i'm using electronic cigarettes, i never touched a cigarette in the past 3 years. as a shop owner it's going to be hard for customers to come in and taste a liquid they would like to tryout. so, if this ban pushes through, how would that affect small businesses like mine? >> they could taste it outside 15 feet away from the entrance. that would be one thing. currently i have over 73
11:37 pm
flavors and, yes, there are candy flavors. but as a nonsmoker, you don't want to smoke tobacco. you don't want to smell cigarettes. that's why vanilla custard, strawberry, it helps you get the nicotine you want, but leave out all the bad stuff. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call a few more cards. dan kerrigan. ted gouge anaheim, karissa ortega. good afternoon, supervisors. [speaker not understood]. from 1983 i worked in the field of tobacco. over the last 23 years as the director of the [speaker not understood] program in san francisco general hospital and for the county. i want to address two observations that i've made in the last few years around e-cigarettes. the san francisco general the participants attending stop program smoking are engaged in dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. it changes depending on the environment. the consequence he are many
11:38 pm
reduce dependency on nicotine. we noticed nobody has ever stopped smoking from using e-cigarette. [speaker not understood]. former smokers have quit for a long period of time expressed concern for using e-cigarettes in environments that have prohibited tobacco use. this scares them as they feel the regulation is needed and they feel they will be triggered by seeing the vapor if they turn to smoking. for these reasons i support the amendment and the regulation of e-cigarettes. >> thank you. next speaker. nice shirt. thank you. my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm safety coordinate for excelsior action group. we are currently partnering with the public health department and local high school students to pass out signs like this to businesses in the excelsior. high school students want me to submit this letter in support of the legislation. excelsior has some of the highest numbers of children in the city that marketing with
11:39 pm
kids [speaker not understood] like banana and advertising [speaker not understood] new generation to nicotine addiction. i recently at&t a restaurant in san francisco. [speaker not understood] allowed them to be used inside the restaurant where children were eating and bring in harmful vapors. i thought i was back in the 1980s. [speaker not understood] huge strides by eliminating use in public places and we can't go backwards. for the health of our community i look forward to the passage of this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. [speaker not understood], tobacco treatment specialist. i work for kaiser permanente as a health educator and i helped to start [speaker not understood] in 1991. i think there's three things to point out. obviously i work with people who want to quit smoking and people are desperate. 70% of them want to be nonsmokers. and if they were to date somebody, they he want to date nonsmokers. so desperate that they're willing to listen to the tobacco industry and what they
11:40 pm
offered them. we know that the fda and the cdc have not approved it. one of the important things about secondhand smoke and limiting smoking is that people are encouraged to quit smoking and that they will suffer less relapse. i think this is a really important thing for us as adults to be good role models to other people. thank you for your legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is adam bowen. i'm the co-founder of a company called plume, a san francisco based business, small business. we design, manufacture, and sell smoking alternatives. so, our product is not an e-cigarette per se, but it's similar in that it emits a vapor that contains nicotine and flavorings [speaker not understood] and similar types of compounds like e-cigarette. so, i'm here to speak on behalf of my company, but also on
11:41 pm
behalf of myself as a former smoker and many smokers looking for alternatives. i think that we've clearly seen a number of people switch to electronic cigarettes or this type of product successfully and a major part of that is the ability to use it indoors. i think that by restricting the indoor use of these products and the absence of hard data to suggest that they are a harmful as cigarettes is -- >> i don't think we're saying they're as harmful, but they are saying they are harmful based on the boatload of research that many of the ucsf researchers have given us. so, i know there's a lot of research that's been conducted and results showing the presence of toxins. but if you look critically at the concentration of those toxins in the emitted vapor and the secondhand vapor and compare to cigarette smoke, you will see that they are light
11:42 pm
years apart. they are completely separate. so, i'd just ask you -- >> but you admit they are harmful. i think that's what the research has shown ~. there have been harmful compounds identified in certain brands of products and that very small levels. >> but your product doesn't have harmful compounds? unfortunately i'm not allowed to comment on the composition. i can't. we encourage people to study our products and other products -- >> can you show us what your product looks like? sure, thank you. yes, so, on behalf of -- again, on behalf of my company and myself and smokers seeking viable alternatives to smoking, we he oppose this ordinance. >> thank you. thank you. >> next speaker. my name is michael barger. i am a medical marijuana patient for chronic pain condition for which there is no other remedy. i also suffer from chronic
11:43 pm
obstructive pulmonary disease. and my physician at the va medical center recommended i try e-cigarettes to stop smoking. within three weeks i stopped, and now this is my vaporizer. i want to recommend to the committee that they not recommend this legislation to the full board of supervisors because there are too many unresolved questions like the marijuana issue, and whether the restrictions apply to vaporizers that do not look like cigarettes as i was assured by victor lent it did not. until those things are corrected and the [speaker not understood] of the legislation, i do not think it is an issue to go before the full board of supervisors. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is lawrence tam and i quit smoking cigarettes for about a year now and i have not felt any withdrawal that
11:44 pm
was stated earlier to the ucsf doctors. as a smoker for 14 years, i know the bad smells of traditional cigarettes. and to label me as a traditional smoker with those people, i get headaches. so, i just want to say -- go through a few marketing strategies [speaker not understood] earlier, how many alcohol companies such as budweiser, [speaker not understood] attractive women trying to sell their line to make sales and to have a good time. i just wanted to say that alcohol is a lot more accessible than electronic cigarettes. >> thank you. if there is anyone else that would like to speak that hasn't been called, please come forward now. we're going to probably close public comment in a minute. next speaker. hi, my name is [speaker not understood] and i am here to oppose the ordinance against electronic cigarettes when it comes to categorizing them as
11:45 pm
tobacco products. trust, i know what tobacco is. i started smoking when i was 14. i was smoking two packs a week and i felt like thats was okay because my father smoked cigarettes all his life. i am 23 right now and this month is my [speaker not understood] of being cigarette free. [speaker not understood]. we have a strict 18 and over policy no sales to minors at all. i have met so many people that have shared their studies with me about vaping and how it changed their life and their health. smoking and vaping are not the same thing. i decided to quit for my health and my future, not to be like my father who smoked 40 plus years. i am young but i am proof electronic cigarettes has fought my [speaker not understood]. >> where is [speaker not understood] city? >> broken pine and nob hill. >> you're an employee of [speaker not understood] and at san francisco state? yes. >> thank you.
11:46 pm
next speaker. my name is dan kerrigan and i live in the outer richmond in san francisco. i'm here today to speak in support of making the same rules apply to electronic cigarettes as the rules that currently apply to tobacco products. i don't want to be exposed to secondhand air pollution from these electronic devices. san francisco has been smoke-free for decades, but i've seen the commercials for these unregulated products and they all say the same thing. that it's okay to expose others to the toxic discharge from your nicotine addiction and that it's okay to disregard the intent of smoke-free laws. whose goal is to protect everyone's right to breathe clean air. the board of supervisors can protect us right now from these secondhand aerosols and protect us from the marketing tactics used by those profiting from pushing an addictive product. i urge you to vote to pass this bill and pro he text our right to breathe clean air. thank you, supervisor mar. >> thank you, am kerrigan.
11:47 pm
next speaker. ~ mr. kerry began my name is ted gugenheim and i'm a resident of the upper haight. as more and more people are using e-cigarettes, more waste is accumulating. batteries, cartridges and atomizers. even refillable cartridgeseses need to be discarded at sometime. proper cartridge disposal involve the following steps. number one, remove the filler material from the cartridge. two, wash it thoroughly in running water until all nicotine residue is gone. [speaker not understood]. four, wash the plastic cartridge under running water. five, plug it with the original plug. 6, dispose of it as you would any other plastic waste. i wonder how many people will actually go through the various steps to deacon thatvth nate their e-cigarette parts prior to disposing of them. by not allowing e-cigarette use in the locations that currently prohibit cigarette use, we will
11:48 pm
be able to protect many sensitive areas such as parks and recreational areas from dangerous e-waste. i therefore request you please pass this common sense measure. >> thank you. next speaker. if there is anyone else na would like to speak, plea come forward. we're going to close public comment soon. hi, my name is kevin brown, [speaker not understood] medical cannabis organization. and we believe that this legislation unfairly targets publicly housed medical cannabis patients and we believe that if their right to consume cannabis in the privacy of their own home, whether it be public or private or own or not, and i believe it's unfair and uncivil to deny them what their doctor recommends for them. thank you. >> actually, i want to say it does not ban people's homes. you could still smoke in your own home. but in public housing, i believe it was banning them in all public housing which is still i believe a violation of civil rights.
11:49 pm
renting, paying for their home. >> i don't think so. let me just defer to jon givner, our city attorney. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. so, what this ordinance does is it applies to e-cigarettes the same restriction as they currently apply under the existing smoking bans in the health code. there is a provision regarding smoking in common areas in public housing. in existing law it prohibits smoking in those common areas and, so, i imagine that's what you're referring to. there is an exception for -- in existing law for smoking in one's own private home. >> thank you. thank you for the testimony. is there anyone else that would like to speak? then through chair yee, i'd like to ask if we can close public comment. >> i guess public comment is
11:50 pm
now closed. [gavel] >> so, did you want to say something? >> i just wanted to say thank you so much to everybody that's come out. it's really been an educational experience. i would strongly urge support for the resolution or for the ordinance. but i did want to say on the medical marijuana issues, it's not targeting anyone, it's about protecting the health and the air. and it's many of us within the tobacco free coalition have been working for years with different policies, policies that are common sense, policies trying to stop the normalization of smoking. i think there is a real different look of a simulation of a cigarette like this is, versus vaporizers whether it's the vaporizer that looks nothing like a cigarette and it is not simulating smoking or others like the vapor, but many vaporizers do not try to simulate cigarettes. and my understanding is that our measure is going after a
11:51 pm
new industry that's big tobacco from the lord alards to the blue 6 and $8 products targeting and hooking, whether it's hipsters who are younger from colleges to middle coolers like my 13 year old, and i would just ask that the applicants from the medical marijuana community to know that it's not targeted at you. it's about protecting the public's health and stopping the big tobacco companies from hooking a new generation of smokers. with that, i'd like to thank the department of public health and many of the researchers that have come out, the community-based organizationses and youth groups that have been really empowering themselves by educating themselves and getting out there. and i would like to urge -- support for my colleagues -- i would like to urge my colleagues to support the ordinance. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you, supervisor mar. i just want to thank everyone who came out and took the time
11:52 pm
to share your thoughts on this particular piece of legislation. i certainly want to acknowledge that potentially e-cigarettes have helped some people who have needed it to be able to stop their addiction, but also want to acknowledge that, yes, there are people who may be potentially in schools who may be gravitating towards eventual tobacco products as a result. so, again, i just want to recognize that i have taken in both viewpoints there. regarding the tobacco sales permit requirements, i just had a question about that. i wanted to know that currently in terms of requirements for those establishments selling e-cigarettes, do they just qualify or are they only classified as retail right now? >> maybe derek might have an answer to that. derek smith and the department of public health. >> the question is simply what permit would they be required to obtain? >> currently right now for establishments selling e-cigarettes. >> there is no requirement at all. at either the state or local
11:53 pm
level and this would require them to obtain a tobacco retail permit. it's an existing program. we found that -- we think about 95% of the tobacco retailers already have -- i'm sorry, the e-cigarette retailers already have a permit. so, 95%, this is why we presented this at the small business commission and they thought it was a pretty straightforward issue because there's just a handful of kind of cigarette only retailers who we would have to bring up to speed and require to obtain a tobacco retail permit. >> so, then, in terms of -- because i do understand that our laws cannot be retroactive and, so, then for that sell e-cigarettes and don't already have a tobacco permit, at what juncture would they be required to obtain a permit? so, for example, upon renewal of a business registration? how would that work? >> great question. that's an annual process. so, it would be -- it's kind of rolled into the business application as i understand it. so, it would be a -- they do annually renew or in this case
11:54 pm
they would be required to submit an application. we certainly would be doing education from the department of public health to all retailers on that particular, particularly on the permitting as well as education to get the word out to a variety of other places, office buildings, placeses where this would apply and make a difference in how they're running their operations. >> um-hm. and i apologize if i didn't catch this earlier, but in terms of the landscape in san francisco, how many establishments are there out there in our city that actually carry e-cigarettes? whether through both selling tobacco products and e-cigarettes or solely e-cigarettes? >> we know as youth advocates mentioned there's a thousand tobacco retailers. we know [speaker not understood] and we found at least 350 that are selling e-cigarettes. it's a convenient add-on on product. particularly you notice some of the product are owned by the tobacco companies. since they already have a distribution network, a couple
11:55 pm
of the tobacco companies aren't really in the game yet. they have test marketing in other states so we really anticipate in the next couple years we will probably see a dwindling of independent and smaller brand and a huge overwhelming force of the tobacco industry which already has a distribution network in every 7-eleven, every corner store, every gas station they would be putting their own brand in which is the blue brand connected to loralard. [speaker not understood] at least 350. since there is no permitting requirement, we don't actually have -- there is no one list for us to find other than calling all of them. >> i did want to emphasize the equity issue, aside from the youth leadership institute raised, where we looked at the 1,000 permitted tobacco sellers, they are largely concentrated in district 6. let me try to remember. district 3 which is in the tenderloin, south of market, and the southeast parts of the city. so, i think what we're doing in
11:56 pm
many ways is to try to stop the selling of harmful products, especially in low-income neighborhoods and their over concentration of tobacco permits in those areas as well. that's what other legislation we'll be proposing with much of the tobacco free coalition in the future, but i think this is a part of it, too. >> so, there were a few speakers that came up in regards to the medical cannabis issue. and i looked and i doubled back to look at the legislation -- the ordinance. in reading and looking at it, it didn't seem like it was targeted that at all. in fact, it seemed kind of clear to me. but, however, i'm just wondering if we could add some language just to really be clear about that piece. i don't know what you would add.
11:57 pm
we certainly don't need it today, but a commitment to add some language to that. >> so, just on page 6 of the legislation line 3 under section 199.8, it does add under section c this article shall not affect any laws or regulation regarding medical cannabis. but if somebody is using a vaporizer that is shaped like a cigarette, if ~ in my communicationses with the city attorney, that would be seen under the definition of an e-cigarette. ~ 19(9) [speaker not understood] or e-cigarettes, battery operated devices that may resemble cigarettes, although they do not contain tobacco leaf, people will use electronic smoking deviceses to inhale
11:58 pm
vaporized liquid nicotine extracted from tobacco or inhale other vaporized liquids created by heat through an electronic ignition system and exhale the vapor in a way that mimics smoking. so, if it's a big vaporize error something that doesn't look like a cigarette, according to my ~ consultation with the city attorney, that would be allowed. what's not allowed is something that's going to make you think somebody is smoking in the bar that the gentleman gave the example of whether it's inside or outside, but that's mailed understanding of the city attorney's reading of this. >> thank you for clarification. for those that have credited these e-cigarettes for helping them stop smoking, evidently it seems like this legislation is not saying that you can't buy it to help you stop smoking
11:59 pm
regular cigarettes. so, for them, if that's what they need, then they could do exactly what it is, buy it and smoke it somewhere where you can smoke it. >> smoke it in their homes, away from the curb or 15 feet away from doorways. but i should say that i just gave the definition of vaporizer if a person has a medical marijuana card and its use for legitimate medical use, not just any vaporizing of something with a big noncigarette looking vaporizer, but it's legitimate medical marijuana use in a non-cigarette simulating device. that's my understanding. >> so, i'm glad to hear that l.a. has passed a similar ordinance. and since my daughter lives in l.a., i'm glad for her. she's hopeful that she will be
12:00 am
moving back here in san francisco soon. certainly i wouldn't want her to move from one place where they actually have a better erin ~ air indoors than san francisco. i don't want the zombies to come back. whether you're on one side or the other side of this issue, whether it's toxic or not toxic, i'm hearing enough that seems like it would be toxic. and for those that say maybe it's not toxic, well, then that's not good enough for me as an argument. the whole issue of advertising and targeting children, we he know other industries have done that. it doesn't surprise you that this is just another attempt to target children to get